9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 677X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come Tax Act, 1961, on account of unexplained gift received by the assessee. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.50,000/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of unexplained loan received by the assessee. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs.56,791/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 24 (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact the same was accepted by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT (A) has erred in law and on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the ld. CIT (A) has erred in holding that no addition/disallowance can be made to the income of the assessee u/s 153A of the IT Act, if such addition is not based on any incriminating material found and seized during the search. Placing reliance on the assessment order, the ld. DR contended that under Section 153A of the Act, there is no requirement of finding of incriminating material during the search for framing assessment. She submitted that in the case of 'CIT vs. Anil Bhatia', 211 Taxman 453 (Del), the Hon'ble High Court has not interpreted the provisions of Section 153A of the Act and, thus, this decision is not applicable to the issue raised herein regarding the validity of the additions made u/s 153A of the Act, in the absence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0/-, as originally returned; that the same was accepted u/s 143 (1) of the Act; that no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued; that so, the return filed and processed became final; that as correctly held by the ld. CIT(A), the AO, in the absence of any incriminating material found in the search for all the concerned six years, i.e., from AY 2002-03 to AY 2007-08, could not have made any addition; that the decision in 'Anil Bhatia' (supra) has been dealt with by the Tribunal in 'Kusum Gupta vs. DCIT' and vice versa for AYs 2003-04 to 2006-07, vide order dated 28.03.2013 (copies placed on record); that in the present case, the assessment order does not find mention of any incriminating material found, nor has any addition been made, nor any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act, where processing of return u/s 143(1)(a) stood completed in respect of returns filed in due course before search and no material is found in the search thereafter, no addition can be made. The Hon'ble High Court, however, held that where assessment order had already been passed in respect of all or any of the assessment years concerned, either under Section 143(1)(a) or Section143(3) of the Act, prior to initiation of search, still the AO is empowered to reopen those proceedings u/s 153A, without any fetters and to reassess total income, taking note of undisclosed income, if any, unearthed during the search. In 'Kusum Gupta' (supra), the Tribunal found that the issue as to whether in a case where no incriminating material was found, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t when all assessments are complete and no assessment has abated, the AO can make addition only on the basis of either incriminating material found during search, or undisclosed income/property disclosed during search. It was noted that in 'Gurinder Singh Bawa' (supra), the addition made in the assessment framed u/s 153A of the Act was deleted as being made without jurisdiction, since the said assessment u/s 153A had been made on the basis of material available in the return of income and there was no reference to any incriminating material found during the search and since no assessment has abated. In 'Kusum Gupta' (supra) it was, thus, noted that the ratio laid down by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in 'Alcargo' (supra) is that when no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the facts of the present case. 13. Accordingly, the grievance of the department by way of Ground No.4 does not hold any water and the same is rejected. The department has not been able to unhinge the categorical finding recorded by the ld. CIT (A) at page 15 of the impugned order that in the instant case, the additions/disallowances have been made in the absence of any material found as a result of the search. The deletion at the hands of the ld. CIT (A) of the additions made by the AO is, as such, confirmed rejecting Ground No.4. 14. In view of the above findings on Ground No.4, the remaining Grounds, i.e., Ground Nos.1-3, challenging the merits of the additions/disallowances, do not require any adjudication, having been rendered infruct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
